REPRODUCED FROM GOOGLE GROUPS ARCHIVE:
------------------------------------
The Yorkshire Ripper cover up was a step too
far, and demands a complete reappraisal of how we view policing and
how we administer a justice system. Realistically, not much will
change
in the foreseeable future.
What we CAN do in our time is to legislate on
a rational basis so as to deal with the practical reality of the
situation and to prevent as much as possible what the British so
charmingly refer to as 'miscarriages of justice,' and to make it
easier to
correct those that do occur.
These sad events have happened because the police are geared toward
achieving 'results,' to relieve the pressure on them from their
bosses, from the media, from politicians and from the general public,
and also
because 'results' are the basis for promotion prospects within the
police service. Under such conditions, there will be a temptation
for
corrupt cops to take shortcuts by framing a 'soft target,' a
vulnerable
suspect with no articulate and influential family or friends, and to
let
such innocent people take the rap for serious crimes, thus
generating
'results' and promotions to senior rank.
What can be done?
Well, apart from the inevitable nepotism and fast-tracking of
cronies, it seems difficult to have a system of police promotions
based on
anything other than 'results,' and 'results' for the most part means
convictions.
At least we can legislate sanely and practically to prevent
'miscarriages of justice' within the current set up, and to make it
easier to correct them. The following are some recommendations:
1. Convictions for offences carrying a jail sentence must never be
allowed on the basis of confessions and / or DNA alone, as we all
know now that confessions can be squeezed out of innocent suspects and
DNA
can be planted.
The criterion for a conviction will have to be:
has the defendant's guilt been proved beyond reasonable doubt in the
absence of the confession and / or of the DNA evidence? If not, do
not convict.
2. In addition, the law should formally acknowledge the unavoidable
tendency for some police officers to be corrupt and to take
shortcuts to spurious 'results.'
On that basis we should legislate rationally to help prevent and
correct miscarriages of justice by giving full immunity from libel
proceedings to any citizen who states that a police officer is
corrupt. The police are a special case when it comes to this form of
accusation
of corruption, because the police have the power to frame innocent
suspects and to have innocent people jailed for life, as has happened
on
innumerable occasions, and so the citizenry are entitled to a
'braking' or balancing legal mechanism in the form of immunity from
being prosecuted for
libel if we say a cop is corrupt.
--------------------
Does that make sense to anyone?
Does anyone want to take those proposals further?
Laws can be forced into being if enough people demand it. There's no
use in saying writing to your MP is a waste of time. It's all we've
got at this stage. It's best to use it, so as to preserve the
semblance of
democracy we still have. It is something to build on, rather than to
dismiss.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(End of extract from Google Groups archive.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that is needed is a TEST CASE to establish in English law
the principle of FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION as enshrined in European Human
Rights Law, which we are told has been incorporated into English law.
If FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is said to conflict with laws prohibiting
libel, we need to establish clearly where that line is to be drawn in
English law.
And if you're telling me that there is no freedom to express the
obvious truths about the Yorkshire Ripper cover up and its bloody
legacy of confusion and fear and shame and death and heartbreak, and
if you're telling me there is no freedom to say a man has been wrongly
convicted when it is glaringly obvious to any half-sane and impartial
observer that a man has been wrongly convicted.... then England is not
a democracy and there is no such thing as freedom of expression in
England and the so-called "Human Rights Act" is best used as toilet
paper.
Look at this image:
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00409/SNN2719A_280_409721a.jpg
See the pain there, a lifetime's pain etched into Sonia's face. Sonia
hanged herself last Christmas, a victim of the REAL Yorkshire Ripper
(NOT Peter Sutcliffe). Are you going to tell me I do not have the
freedom of expression to inform other victims of the REAL Yorkshire
Ripper of the truth about this unprecedented scandal, to ease the pain
etched into their faces and to try to save them from going the same
way as Sonia?
Have a test case if you want it then.
I WANT TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY I AM LIVING IN, AND I AM SURE THE
REST OF THE WORLD WANTS TO KNOW WHAT KIND OF COUNTRY ENGLAND IS.
What are we allowed to say, when confronted with this ongoing legacy
of pain, and all the hidden victims of the REAL Yorkshire Ripper, who
are not as newsworthy as Sonia? |